Dictionary.com claims that the plural of 'apparatus' is 'apparatuses'. Surely that can't be right... isn't it 'apparati'?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
The Latin plural of the noun apparatus is actually apparatus (the vowel lengthens, but that's not reflected in the spelling). This is because it's fourth declension. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when most educated English speakers had studied Latin, apparatus was sometimes used as the plural; I believe this usage is quite rare today.
With status, apparatus, and other Latin nouns of the fourth declension ending in -us, the English plural adds an -es. The Latin nouns which pluralize by turning an -us into an -i, like radius, fungus, alumnus, are all second declension. For some Latin nouns of the second declension, like campus, the Latin plural has been lost, and the English plural adds an -es. But campi would be correct in Latin, while apparati is incorrect in both English and Latin.
You don't actually hear the English plural apparatuses that often, because apparatus is treated as a semi-uncountable noun: one apparatus, two pieces of apparatus. (See Google Ngrams.) I assume this usage developed because people didn't know whether to use apparatus or apparatuses for the plural, and figured out a way of avoiding the issue altogether.
What Peter said. If you really have to make a plural of the English word, you could use apparatus, which is given as a plural in the OED. But the OED also gives apparatuses, which seems a much better bet.
As @JohnLawler said, not all Latin words keep their Latin plurals. Consider:
And the list goes on. I have no Latin so I don't know how many of these don't keep their plural because of the rule mentioned in @PeterShor's answer but you can see that many Latin words have normal English plurals. In other words, trust the dictionary, it tends to know more than we do.
To write "apparati" is an example of a hypercorrection:
It's the pedant's own-goal, basically. I've made many. Using "whom" as a subject pronoun is a classic.
Some more examples similar to the question are:
Although in some cases (see "octopi" vs "octopuses" on Ngrams) the hypercorrected form may be common enough to be accepted as standard usage.
In the case of "syllabus", for instance, an analysis of the Latin shows "syllabi" to be a hypercorrection. However Ngrams shows it to be more widely used than the supposedly more correct "syllabuses".
This singular/plural problem affects many languages that have given loanwords to English. Arabic is a bugbear for non-Arabists. The word Caliph (originally khalifa) has its correct plural as khulafa'. An increasingly common term, hadith (a prophetic tradition) is ahadith, and that confuses because of what looks like an English indefinite article at the beginning. (The middle vowel also lengthens. A Bedouin is worse: it is already an inflected sound plural (the previous two are 'broken') and it is also used in English as a plural. One Bedouin is a badu, nominative Bedouins are Badawun, and the adjective is badawi. A similar form is assassin, which starts as an inflected plural hashshashin. A hashshash is, reputedly, someone who smokes hashish (grass). Hummus comes from a collective plural himmas (and variants),chickpeas. And much more....
protected by tchrist Feb 22 '15 at 0:23
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?